Impeachment 2.0

[El OchoCinco]

A full examination of a full range of witnesses would have been necessary to establish intent.

The dems did not want to expose themselves and the process to a full examination even though they initially voted to do so. That's fine but that but that is their problem, not the defendant's. Never a good sign when the prosecution is interested in less evidence and testimony rather than more.

bringing in witnesses would have stretched this out for a few months.......there was no need to do so if the vote was already known before hand. Trump and Pence would have refused to testify... any staff members would have been sued by Trump's legal team to keep quiet due to executive priviledge....there was nothing to expose.

Stop being biased for one minute.... the vote was preordained at 55-45 before it started so the defense could have simply said a la Cousin Vinny "The other side is full of shit" and sat back down and no change to the outcome.

Impeachment is always a political trial, not a criminal or civil one.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

bringing in witnesses would have stretched this out for a few months.......there was no need to do so if the vote was already known before hand.

I see. They brought articles of impeachment with no intent to allow the defendant to call witnesses and put on a full defense.

Actually, they voted to call-allow witnesses and just backed off because they realized that the defendant would have that power too.

Not Trump's problem that the prosecution was not prepared to allow defendant to have the same right to call witnesses as the prosecution wanted for itself.

Defendant was acquitted and the prosecution called all the witnesses it wanted to. That number was zero though. So if intent was not fully established and that would have required more testimony by witnesses then that is the prosecutions problem. It is not the defenses duty to prosecute the case against him.

 

[ph1l]

The charges are not limited to just what he said on Jan 6th so to say everything he did before January 6 are irrelevant. That is not how criminal charges work when intent is involved.

Also, it does not matter what party you are from or what your view is of trump...... the jury was always voting mainly by party. GOP had acquittal before the impeachment even began and Dems had guilty.
It was not about weakness of either side......it was not an impartial jury and for impeachment it never is...same reason Clinton was impeached and acquitted.

Regarding the legal definition of intent, https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/4-2-criminal-intent/ has

A basic definition of general intent is the intent to perform the criminal act or actus reus. If the defendant acts intentionally but without the additional desire to bring about a certain result, or do anything other than the criminal act itself, the defendant has acted with general intent

So then maybe general intent could be argued just because Trump spoke there, and the riots happened later. But I think based on Trump's speech on January 6, it was clear he intended for peaceful, but useless protest at the Capitol, not a riot in the Capitol.

Unless someone could convince Trump to testify at the trial (or they made the vote a secret ballot), it would have been very hard to get 17 Republicans to vote for conviction. And no matter what was presented, it would have been equally hard to get any Democrat to vote for acquittal.

So the trial was like EliteTrader -- mostly for entertainment purposes.

 

[Atlantic]

what was demonstrated once again was the simple fact that "gop" is just a miserable club of spineless cowards and corrupt a**holes.

more than ever.

for them it's not about law and justice, it's only about power and money.

more than ever.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Regarding the legal definition of intent, https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/4-2-criminal-intent/ has

So then maybe general intent could be argued just because Trump spoke there, and the riots happened later. But I think based on Trump's speech on January 6, it was clear he intended for peaceful, but useless protest at the Capitol, not a riot in the Capitol.

Unless someone could convince Trump to testify at the trial (or they made the vote a secret ballot), it would have been very hard to get 17 Republicans to vote for conviction. And no matter what was presented, it would have been equally hard to get any Democrat to vote for acquittal.

So the trial was like EliteTrader -- mostly for entertainment purposes.

Incitement of riot and/or insurrection are still crimes under the federal criminal code and acquittal at impeachment does not remove the possibility of criminal prosecution.

If the DOJ wants to go for it, then go for it. No one should complain later though that the extended circus keeps the focus on Trump rather than Sleepy Joe.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Regarding the legal definition of intent, https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/4-2-criminal-intent/ has

So then maybe general intent could be argued just because Trump spoke there, and the riots happened later. But I think based on Trump's speech on January 6, it was clear he intended for peaceful, but useless protest at the Capitol, not a riot in the Capitol.

Unless someone could convince Trump to testify at the trial (or they made the vote a secret ballot), it would have been very hard to get 17 Republicans to vote for conviction. And no matter what was presented, it would have been equally hard to get any Democrat to vote for acquittal.

So the trial was like EliteTrader -- mostly for entertainment purposes.

it was not a criminal trial...

 

[El OchoCinco]

I see. They brought articles of impeachment with no intent to allow the defendant to call witnesses and put on a full defense.

Actually, they voted to call-allow witnesses and just backed off because they realized that the defendant would have that power too.

Not Trump's problem that the prosecution was not prepared to allow defendant to have the same right to call witnesses as the prosecution wanted for itself.

Defendant was acquitted and the prosecution called all the witnesses it wanted to. That number was zero though. So if intent was not fully established and that would have required more testimony by witnesses then that is the prosecutions problem. It is not the defenses duty to prosecute the case against him.

Defense did not want to call witnesses....dont lie..they could have entered statements in the record but they chose not to...there was no need to...... stop lying.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Defense did not want to call witnesses....dont lie..they could have entered statements in the record but they chose not to...there was no need to...... stop lying.

Correct.

The defense did not want to call witnesses unless the prosecution started down that road.
And if they did, they would, on steroids. The dems played chicken and lost.

So it was the prosecutions decision to back off based on a logical expectation of how that would ultimately hurt their agenda.

Again- Not the defendant's problem. Not prepared to bring a full case? Don't start down that road. Your argument that everyone should have just been a sport and let the dems impeach trump but be able to get out of it with a quick and tidy little vote is noted. For what it is worth.

Trump was caused to defend himself- against his will- and did so. And was acquitted. No sob story there for the dems.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

The dems played chicken and lost.

MAJORLY AF

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Defense did not want to call witnesses....dont lie..they could have entered statements in the record but they chose not to...there was no need to...... stop lying.

There was no criminality. No reason to call witnesses.